1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Criminal Revision No. 272 of 2011 • Smt. Kari Bai, aged about 40 years, W/o Janak Ram Yadav, Occupation : Employee State Bank of India, Bagbahara, P.S. Bagbahara, District – Mahasamund (C.G.). ... Applicant versus • Sachin Gorakh S/o. Shri Saukhi Lal Gorakh, R/o. Sivaji Marge, Tikara Para, P.S. Siti Kotwali, Bilaspur C.G. ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Pawan Kesharwani and Ms. Aditi Diwan, Advocates For Respondent : None present after repeated calls. Hon’ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal Judgment on Board 01/04/2025 1. The present revision is filed under Section 397/401 of Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment dated 26.04.2011 passed by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, (C.G.) in Criminal Appeal No.22/2011 whereby the appeal filed by the applicant is partly allowed while upholding the conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The Appellate Court reduced the jail sentence of simple imprisonment of 6 months to 3 months and considering that the applicant has paid Rs.30,000/- out of total compensation of Rs.1,05,000/-, reduced the compensation amount to Rs.75,000/- from Rs.1,05,000/- as passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, PRAKASH KUMAR Digitally signed by PRAKASH KUMAR Date: 2025.04.02 15:17:37 +0530 2 Bilaspur, District – Bilaspur, in Criminal Case No.644/2010 vide its judgment dated 20.01.2011, while keeping intact the default sentence thereof. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the on 30.09.2006 applicant/accused, for the purpose of emergency domestic needs and requirement had allegedly obtained Rs.1,05,000/- as loan, for which, an agreement was executed between them and in pursuance thereof, the applicant had issued a cheque bearing number 621017 to the complainant and on production of such cheque before the Bank, the same was returned stating that ‘Account has been closed’. Subsequently, due to such bounce of cheque, the complainant on 01.11.2007 issued a statutory legal notice to the applicant demanding her to repay the loan amount and in default, the complainant was compelled to file criminal case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. 3. The Trial Court took the cognizance of the complaint and after appreciating the evidence available on record, convicted and sentenced the applicant as mentioned in paragraph one of this judgment. However, in appeal, while affirming the conviction part of the applicant, the jail sentence was reduced by the Appellate Court to S.I. for three months from six months. This apart, the Appellate Court also reduced the compensation amount as mentioned in opening paragraph of this judgment. Hence, this revision. 4. Learned Counsel appearing for the applicant submits that he does not want to challenge the conviction of the applicant but is challenging the finding of sentence part, which, according to him, is on higher side. He 3 further submits that the applicant has remained in jail for about 10 days i.e. from 26.04.2011 to 05.05.2011, she has no criminal antecedents, she is facing the lis since 2007, and that, she is an old aged sick lady. Therefore, the jail sentence awarded to the applicant may be reduced to the period already undergone by her. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant and perused the record. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, statements of complainant Sachin Gorakh supported with the other evidence available on record, this Court is of the opinion that the finding recorded by the learned Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court being based on the evidence available on record is correct finding. Thus, I hereby affirm the conviction of the applicant. 7. As regards the sentence part of the applicant, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the facts that applicant has remained in jail for about 10 days, she has no criminal antecedents, she is facing the lis since 2007, i.e. for more than 17 years and that, she is an old aged sick lady, I am of the view that no fruitful purpose would be served to send the applicant back to jail again, ends of justice would be met if, while upholding the conviction imposed upon applicant, the jail sentence awarded to her is reduced to the period already undergone by her while keeping intact the compensation amount passed by the Appellate Court. 8. Consequently, the revision is partly allowed. The conviction of applicant under the aforementioned Section is affirmed and she is sentenced to 4 the period already undergone by her. 9. Since the applicant is reported to be on bail, therefore, her bail bond shall remain in force for a period of six months from today in view of provision of Section 437-A of Cr.P.C. Sd/- (Radhakishan Agrawal) JUDGE Prakash